DirectionNorth
Active Member
Again. Nobody. Is. Advocating. For. Mass. Demolition. It. Is. Merely. A. Strawman. You. Have. Invented.People vastly under-estimate how much opportunity there is for intensification beyond our low rise residential neighbourhoods. Greater Toronto - Hamilton could accommodate millions more people focusing solely on our arterial roads, 17 nodes (downtown, MCC, VMC, etc.), and brown fields. If we exhaust opportunities to intensify then look at low rise neighbourhoods but we could keep growing as we have for 50+ years before reaching that point.
The idea that all parts of the city need intensification doesn't make sense nor is it desirable. I'd hate for Toronto to end up like Paris with fairly uniform density from one end to the other. Diversity is our strength/trump card and that extends to having super high density areas, mid density, and yes, low density too. Low density and parkland offer an oasis and visual break. People are too quick to destroy things without considering that these places have some benefit. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
1 of those 17 nodes (downtown Toronto) could conceivable fit another 200,000 all by itself and its only 17 sq km. There are LOADS of places in Greater Toronto - Hamilton that could accommodate 50,000 to 100,000 people with similar density. We don't need to touch neighbourhoods like the Annex, Cabbagetown, Danforth, Leaside, etc. if we're smart about growth. Besides, it's not like these places don't have arterial roads going through them where one can build a wall of mid-rises (6-12 floors).
Upzoning the Yellowbelt would create the diversity you write about. We'd likely have pockets of high (and medium) density in what are currently low density areas. What kind of benefit is there to more shoebox condos along arterials?